General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWoody Allen Speaks Out
First 4 paragraphs. He presents a compelling argument.
******************************************************************************
Woody Allen Speaks Out
By WOODY ALLENFEB. 7, 2014
TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Botany
(70,449 posts)" ... when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the
woman I’d go on to marry ....
AKA you were having a sexual relationship w/ a young lady who had been in the
role as your daughter in your then blended family.
I don't know if the charges against you are true or false but you, Mr. Allen, are
a sleazy dirt bag.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)"To think that Woody was in any way a father or stepfather to me is laughable. My parents are Andre Previn and Mia, but obviously they're not even my real parents," Previn said at the time. "I came to America when I was seven. I was never remotely close to Woody. He was someone who was devoted exclusively to his own children and to his work, and we never spent a moment together."
-- Soon Yi Previn
Botany
(70,449 posts)Mr. Allen was in his late 50s @ the time too. Woody crossed many many lines
of decency in his relationship w/ Soon Yi.
After ending his relationship with Mia Farrow in 1992, Allen continued his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. Though Allen never married Mia Farrow[118][124] and was not Previn's legal stepfather, the relationship between Allen and Previn has often been referred to as a stepfather involved romantically with his stepdaughter[125] because she was adopted and legally Farrow's daughter and Allen's son's sister. In 1991, The New York Times opined on Allen's family life: "Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does."
from wiki
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Soon Yi never considered Allen her father and as she said never spent a moment with him, so one would think hers is the opinion that matters. They have been married for 17 years which is longer than Allen ever spent with Farrow.
Allen also never spent a night at Farrow's apartment. If the age difference seems significant, consider who her mother is. If Allen is creepy for wanting to be with someone who is youthful and attractive, consider how creepy it is for someone to want to be with someone who is far older. Consider also how creepy it is to have a child with one man and cuckold another into believing it's his.
d_b
(7,462 posts)woody's son my ass
The likeness of Frank Sinatra is jaw dropping!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)Making it all about HER is trying to skirt the issue with Woody. Shameful...
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)It isn't "all about HER". It isn't all about Allen either. It's not all about any one person. It's a complicated mess involving lots of people. If you work your way up the thread you might note that what is beeing discussed is the situation between Allen and Soon Yi, which has pretty much squat to do directly with the "major sexual assault" allegation in the first place. If you want to allege that I'm trying to make it "all about HER" and that this is somehow shameful on my part, more power to you, but I'm not going to feel shame for offering relevant points to what is being discussed just because you seem to think I should for whatever reason. Personally I wouldn't be too proud of making such a half-fast finger wag, but whatever floats your boat.
Cheers!
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)"Woody Allen Speaks Out"?
It seems to me that he is "speaking out" against a very serious charge against him, which, if proven, would have grave legal consequences to him. In your opinion, are there "mitigating" circumstances I and others here are ignoring?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Woody and Mia were not married.
Woody and Mia were no co-habitating.
Soon Yi Previn is not Woody's biological child.
Soon Yi Previn is not Woody's adopted child.
Soon-Yi Previn was above the age of consent.
Is it freaky for a guy to dump his girlfriend and take up with her daughter? Yes. But that's all it is - aside from NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)It's a family unit.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Two of the three children were adopted (jointly, but they never lived with Allen). And the third child appears to have been fathered by Frank Sinatra. They were never a "family unit" in a traditional or non-traditional sense of the word.
Allen and Farrow were a couple. Now they're not. And it appears that somebody is having some serious problems in accepting that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stays at the summer house in the summer house in connecticut.
over ten years two adults with young children. ten years is a long time in a childs life to see two adults united. that is a family unit. brothers and sisters. he is a father to some. not connected to others. but, he is still the adult male image in this family unit.
a child is not gonna be rationalizing this as us adults. they are still gonna see that man as an authoritative adult in their environment.
Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)even if not a traditional one. Two people adopting and raising children together are a family.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)They did not live together. You can say what you want AND YOU CAN EVEN SAY IT IN ALL CAPS, but Woody was never a parent or even a parental figure to Soon-Yi Previn.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)just your average "boy meets girl" story...isn't it romantic? No sneaking around behind your current date's back, just a coupla kids...ah, first love, so terribly sweet and innocent...
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Throw in the distinct possibility that their one biological child might have been fathered by Frank Sinatra, and I think you have a cherry on top of this whole weird story.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)but by Sinatra? Was it a revenge thing, in your opinion?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)It's never been proven that Sinatra is the father (but hell, look at the kid's eyes and then look at a picture of Sinatra), so I don't think that was the case.
Here's what I think:
Mia had just been massively and publicly humiliated by the break-up. I mean, getting dumped for a younger woman is bad enough, but when the younger woman is your adopted child....I mean, shit. I absolutely don't blame her for hating Woody's guts, then and now. Mia was losing not only her relationship with Woody, but also her relationship with Soon-Yi, and all this was being served up in the tabloid press in the most mortifying manner imaginable.
I think Mia was pissed and she was bitter and I think she coached Dylan into making a false statement, one that over the years, the kid has grown to believe was really true.
Sound far-fetched? The American Bar Association did some research a few years back, and they found that allegations of parental child abuse occur in 4% of divorces. But in cases where both sides are contesting custody, the figure triples to 12%. And we don't know how many threats of such an allegation were made outside the courtroom in order to get one parent or the other to back off demands for custody.
The reason should be obvious: an allegation of child molestation (particularly for a high-profile individual) is the family court version of nuclear warfare. When one party of the other is feeling sufficiently desperate -- or just plain furious -- they'll drop the bomb as a last resort.
That's what I think happened here. Mia was furious with Woody and determined that he would never be able to come near her family again. An accusation of child molestation would serve both purposes.
A child's report of abuse should always (and I mean always) be taken seriously. It should be fully investigated, even if it causes some embarrassment to the individual who is accused. That's what happened here. Given that the medical team did not find any evidence of molestation, and the six month police investigation amounted to nothing, and that there has never been any allegation, before or since, of Woody's molesting a child, I just find it had to take one (possibly tainted) allegation as proof of anything.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)believe that he had concerns about Woody being with Dylan, all of this that I won't rehash because surely you know what I am talking about. So some of us have suspicions that have some bearing on what has been revealed.
What I am getting at is the only undeniable fact in Woody's actual behavior that is beyond suspicion at this point: he was having sex with his teenaged stepdaughter who lived with his lover, a young woman nearly 40 years his junior. The facts of their surroundings are not inconsequential...he didn't meet her on a movie set, or in a coffee shop, etc...she was the daughter of his partner. So here you have two factors that are indisputable: the 39 year age disparity and the fact that she was Mia's child in her home when he began having sex with her. So when Dylan at age 7 tells her mother what happened with Woody, we either have to have suspicions that she is telling the truth or manufacture from whole cloth a story about Mia the Sociopath, as you have generally outlined it. Based on the history here it seems to me that there is one story that has no factual basis and one that at least has some legs to it, based on what happened earlier.
Now to enter into evidence Mia Farrow's sex life with other partners, as some sort of proof of the Mia the Sociopath scenario, is not dispositive on the question of whether Woody committed child molestation. Woody's past actions with Soon Yi have a lot more evidentiary heft. His gall in presenting the sex affair with Soon Yi as some sort of delightful romance, as he did in the NYT OpEd, just makes him look worse, not better.
Again, I want to be clear. I want to stick with what we do know at this point not a narrative that we can dream up. I can, for instance, find a perfectly "logical" reason that Woody never "did it again" (it's called Events that Happen in Aging Men's Lives, to put it daintily). But from now on, I say let's stay within the bounds of what we DO know that pertains to this matter and not create our own screenplay.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)For starters, the judge who issued the "probable cause" statement was reprimanded by the CT State Grievance Panel, calling his comments, "inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial." It was a statement that he had no business making.
Second, Woody possibly had sex with a 19 year-old-woman. Fact is, Soon-Yi may have been 21 (there's some confusion as to the correct date on her Korean birth certificate). In any case, Soon-Yi was NOT Woody Allen's step-daughter and was NEVER Woody Allen's step-daughter and she was above the age of consent (17 in New York; 16 in Connecticut) when the relationship began.
Freaky? Yes. Titillating? Absolutely. But while we're pondering the 35-year age difference between the two, let's not forget that there was a 30-year age difference between Sinatra and Mia Farrow, yet nobody seemed to ever care about that. Nobody accused Sinatra of being a child molester because he married a woman who was the SAME AGE (or nearly so) as Soon-Yi Previn.
Third, there's a big difference between a man who likes to be around younger women (provided they're of legal age) and a pedophile. What's more, aside from one women Allen dated briefly in the 1970's, Allen's partners have all been women in their early- to mid-thirties. There's not even a "pattern of behavior" with regard to Allen's dating younger women, much less molesting children.
You want to stick to the facts on the table? They are these (and I repeat):
There was no medical evidence of molestation.
The six-month criminal investigation yielded nothing.
Allen has never before or since been accused of anything of the sort.
What you DO have is an unsubstantiated claim of molestation pursuant to an extraordinarily acrimonious custody dispute.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)
In your first paragraph you make a reference I 've not seen before. Where is this Panel's statement on the judge found in the material on this case?
Of and by itself, Woody having sex with a 19 or 20 year old is not the question and the issue of one year is trivial. And my point about the relationship of the two was not that they were or were not technically that she was his official "stepdaughter." However, it was in the context of his relationship with the girl's mother at the time and the fact that she was living with her mother. I've already drawn that distinction e.g, he did not meet Soon Yi on a movie set, at a party, etc. What is troubling is that he started the affair while acting as her mother's love/sex partner. Context is everything here. If she had been a 19/20 year old meeting and developing a sexual relationship OUTSIDE of the family, there would be no controversy, except eyebrows would be raised about the age difference.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were all about an older man liking "to be around" younger women who are legal age. As for the age difference between Mia and Sinatra, please, again, use CONTEXT. Sinatra was never accused of molesting a child, with the grown child herself making the accusation.
The medical evidence was not forthcoming because Dylan was freaked out by having the medical exam that would be necessary. I think Mia felt that traumatizing her daughter further would not be in the best interest of the child, while it would, of course, damage the case against Woody. If the scenario of Mia the Sociopath were played out here I doubt that she would have been stopped by concerns for the child. Since that is key, the criminal investigation had to be curtailed.
We don't know too much about Woody's sex life as a much younger man and we can only speculate as to why he has never been accused again as an old man. For one thing, he has a younger sex partner that he is still married to. At 78, we can only speculate about other reasons, including sexual dysfunction, such as ED, that can and does happen to many men. But again, this is speculation so I think we should just keep it at that and agree that is a question we can't know the answer to.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Here's the information on the prosecutor's statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/nyregion/panel-criticizes-prosecutor-in-inquiry-on-woody-allen.html
As to your next point, I frankly have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if Woody met her on a movie set or on the dark side of the moon. They were two adults. The fact that they were both in a relationship with Mia Farrow at the time is fodder for cheap tabloids, but not for anything else. There have been at least a half-dozen episodes of "Jerry Springer" on the same topic.
Moving along...
The medical evidence was not forthcoming? I think you don't know your facts. There was a medical examination of Dylan Farrow after the alleged incident by experts at Yale-New Haven Hospital who found that the child had "difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality." And there was a six-month investigation by the Connecticut State Police, which found that the child's testimony inconsistent.
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf
The reason there was no prosecution was not to spare Dylan, but because of the following statement from the report: "It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan's statements on videotape and her statements to us during her evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4, 1992."
As a prosecutor, you'd have to be insane to go to trial with your own medical experts and your own police investigators finding against you.
The facts of the matter remain:
There was no medical evidence of molestation.
The six-month criminal investigation yielded nothing.
Allen has never before or since been accused of anything of the sort.
Nothing. And I mean nothing you have posted does anything to budge these three statements.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)if there were just this and nothing more, we would have to concluded...inconclusion...
However, and I'll let it rest here, the net effect in this NYT story, and the concluding paragraph is "In June, a Supreme Court judge in Manhattan awarded Ms. Farrow custody of the estranged couple's three children and sharply restricted Mr. Allen's right to visit them."
That raises significant questions, IMO...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)New series of accusations against Allen by Dylan comes about just when it is hitting Mainstream Consciousness that Farrow passed off Sinatra's son as being Allen's.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)were adopting and raising children together, hence they were a family unit, and much more than simply boyfriend and girlfriend.
Soon yi was the sister of Woody's children, and that sort of a relationship is a good deal more creepy than anything that Mia did. Even if she had done something more creepy, it still wouldn't make what Woody did acceptable.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)they had children together, but Soon-Yi was not one of them. Particularly not by blood. And Allen did not live in their home.
As "creepy" as this situation may seem, dating your girlfriend's daughter is probably not that unusual. Would I do it? No. But I can guarantee you it happens.
And it doesn't mean the guy who does it is a child molester. It doesn't mean he's even remotely sexually attracted to children.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)Guy dating mom, then starts hanging out with nineteen year old daughter... I'm sure it's been the cause of many a break-up. Allen and Farrow are not unique in that way.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)google image woody allen and soon yi and mia and there are plenty of images of her as a child with mia, woody and other kids.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)So what were they to do when photos were taken, tell all the other kids to stay out of the photos?
seaglass
(8,171 posts)"He was someone who was devoted exclusively to his own children and to his work, and we never spent a moment together"
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)it's pretty obvious what she means.
I am not going to bother to find her full quote. I know the context.
So you do you, though many on DU insist on ignoring it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and satchel later. but... they did family vacations to europe, stayed at her connecticut house on vacation, and it is a family unit.
there are two adults, and the oldest at 10 soon yi, being hearded by two adults. whether he paid attention to soon yi or not, it is still the making of a family unit. the children still was a family unti with soon yi as sister. regardless of his relationship with soon yi over the years, it is still a creep that steps over this boundary.
the relationship supposedly started up while soon yi was still at him, over basket ball games. she started going with him to the games while she was a teen, and at home.
supposedly, the story is.... they never acknowledged or talk to each other, yet she was empowered to ask to go to a basketball game with him, when he had extra tickets and he says.... sure.
tblue37
(65,227 posts)take Soon Yi to the games, at least partly because the girl was socially awkward.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Soon Yi and Allen would have seen each other when Allen came to see his children. They might have taken photos together. They may have had meals together as both had a connection through Mia. They probably even said hello to each other on occasion. However, both Allen and Soon Yi contend that both ignored each other until Allen asked her to go to a basketball game. As far as I know, nobody has ever disputed this including Mia or any of the children.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)she was a child. he was the adult male, couple with the mother. sisters/brothers. a family unit. whether allen was connected to the other children or not, from teh age of 9 or 10 soon yi experienced a family unit.
many parents do not pay attention to their children, are poor parents, not connected, and STILL it is a family unit.
a decade is a long time for children, a long time with this family unit
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)As someone else said, comparing yours or any other typical experiences with theirs is apples and oranges. Allen never so much as spent the night at Mia's place and any time they would have been in the same location as a "family unit" would have included countless other people, many of whom were certainly not family. You're talking about people who raise their children by the proxy of paid help. You're also talking about a "family unit" that had at least two other so-called 'father figures' for whatever that means to an affluent "family unit" where the kids are raised by the help.
At this point the only two people's opinions that matter are Soon Yi and Allen. Both have been together for 17 years.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)But I can't even imagine myself in such a situation and I don't think anyone else here can either.
Best to not judge the sexual activities of clearly consenting adults, wouldn't you say?
boston bean
(36,219 posts)the mother of his children, adopted daughter. That fact is not in dispute.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)comments like this take me to rage.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)What does an adult man who either pursues or accepts a relationship with a sexually mature adult woman tell you about whether or not he's a pedophile?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dylan shows the pedophile he is.
two separate issues
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Image what you'd say about anyone else who pals around with a man convicted of drugging and raping a child.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we are talking about ta man that molested a 7 yr old girl.
the judge took care of it. he stated allen was grossly inappropriate with the girl and he said, take measures to protect dylan.
he did.
no custody.
no visitation
no supervised visitation
she was protected.....
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)I suggest you read the entire thing, instead of believing all the cherry-picking being done by others who claim to have read it.
He says in the ruling that while the investigation CLEARED Allen, he is not convinced it didn't happen. He offers not a SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support this claim and ignores evidence to the contrary in his ruling. So, in other words, the ruling was based on one thing only: his obvious disdain for Woody Allen.
On top of this, that ruling is a ruling in a CIVIL custody case, not a criminal case, which has completely different standards of law. There was not enough evidence for a criminal proceeding. And in my world—the world of progressive politics and not conservative witch hunts—people charged with a criminal offense are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And Allen wasn't even charged.
I'm sorry, but I choose to believe that a panel of experts in child-abuse finding that there was no abuse is a lot stronger evidence than a judge expressing his opinion in a separate child custody case.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Although the Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic decided Dylan hadn't been molested, Connecticut State Police reached a different conclusion, and on Sept. 24, 1993, Maco called a news conference to announce that although there was probable cause to arrest Allen, he would not press charges because of the fragility of the "child victim."
Maco was accused of trying to prejudice a custody battle between Allen and Mia Farrow then taking place in New York, where a judge eventually awarded custody of Dylan to her mother.
While making clear they were not commenting on the specifics of the Allen-Farrow case, two veteran prosecutors, Danbury State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III, and his predecessor, the now-retired Walter Flanagan, said it was not unusual for a prosecutor to consider the impact that pursuing a criminal complaint could have on a victim.
"What I have found in my own personal experience is it depends on the individual child as well as the facts of the case," Sedensky said.
"There are many factors that go into it," Flanagan said. "There is no such thing as usual or unusual case. Every case is unique. It's what you think is right."
While Dylan Farrow's public statement is "a big story and is inviting discussion and controversy," Read said, the commotion hasn't spread to Bridgewater.
There, Read said, Mia Farrow is a just another longtime resident who has been involved in a variety of activities, and whose privacy is respected.
Maco spent five years fighting misconduct allegations brought by Allen, including a disciplinary hearing before the Criminal Justice Commission, which appoints state prosecutors, and the Statewide Grievance Committee, which investigates complaints of misconduct by attorneys.
"All the complaints were dismissed in 1997, and I retired in 2003 with an unblemished career," he said.
Still, Maco said he hopes Dylan Farrow has been able to read his statement about his decision not to prosecute Allen.
"I hope she has access to that statement, to know what I did and why I did it," Maco said. "I hope she finds some peace and solace at this time."
http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Prosecutor-in-Woody-Allen-case-back-in-the-5201622.php
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)I'm talking about the judge's ruling in a CIVIL case, which the post I responded to presented as proof that Allen must be guilty.
As for the prosecutor, I worked in the legal system for twenty years and I'll tell you that I've never met a prosecutor who thought the person he's pursuing is innocent. And I've never met a prosecutor who wouldn't go after a child molester if he had the evidence to do it. Especially with a high profile case that's likely to win him a lot of points.
If you ever watch true crime shows like 20/20, etc., take notice of what the prosecutor says when a convicted man goes free because of new evidence. Nearly every single time, the prosecutor will say, "I still believe he's guilty" despite evidence staring him in the face that he is not.
The bottom line here is this: there was not enough evidence to prove Allen guilty. The prosecutor became invested in his belief that Allen was guilty, however—as all prosecutors do—and said as much to the newspapers.
His "gut feeling" means nothing. And neither does his "spare the child" cover story.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)you have an opinion on is duly noted, which comes down to his opinion vs yours. When you look at the
record in totality there was probable cause. All the complaints against the prosecutor were dismissed.
There was no witch hunt.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)The same reason you probably wouldn't do it. Take your reasoning and apply it to him.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Adults fall in love in precarious situations all the time. I would personally reason against all sorts of things consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean I should judge someone else for it. Take your judgments and apply them to Soon Yi who was also an adult party to the affair and eventual marriage and see how that one rolls out of the equation.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)fucked up to have sex with the adopted daughter of your childrens mother.
Sorry, won't be changing my mind.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)But bringing it up in the context that it provides any useful evidence that Allen is a pedophile is no more productive than people who claim those who engage in adult same sex relationships are more likely to be pedophiles.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Why don't you stay on topic of what my posts actually are stating.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)boundaries. damn straight i do. i damn well KNOW that NO i would NEVER step over this line for any reason.
not judge? it is not about what consenting adults are doing. it is people that cannot recognize the boundaries of PURPOSELY hurting people we supposedly love.
i KNOW..... what i am and am not capable of. what i am willing to do to another person for my own self gratification.
and it is not this.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Believe it or not, people PURPOSELY enter into relationships that wind up hurting people they supposedly love all the time. Farrow maintained a relationship with Sinatra up until his death and even had a kid with him while simultaneously maintaining one with Allen, even telling him that Ronan was his kid and suing him for child support. What kind of boundary do you think that crosses?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i wont
that simple
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just sayin'
Welcome back by the way, and I mean that.
Cheers!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i refuse to participate. havent all week.
i do not care about mia, ronan, mosely..... at all.
i am talking about allen abusing dylan. and in this subthread, i am touching on soon yi and allen and stepping over boundary.
i am not going thru mias history. i am not trying to dismiss those two issue in an interested in to bring in other crap.
you are right
i did not answer the question, and i will not
and .... thank you major. sincerely. 
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)If anything, Soon Yi seems to be less relevant than everything else, especially if one is trying to build a case that Allen is a pedophile. It suggests to me exactly the opposite of what is being alleged.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for over a decade, with children, a decade being a very long time in childrens life.... it was a family unit.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)But the claim that there was any family relationship between Allen and Soon Yi is just not the case. There's no biological, legal, or even personal connection prior to them dating. They happened to be in the same room from time to time and they shared relationships with other people. That's about it.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)false. There is no "might have" about photos, they exist. You choose to believe her despite the lie, I do not.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)Why don't we start parsing words now so we can publicly convict a man without a shred of corroborating evidence?
seaglass
(8,171 posts)what she really meant.
She did spend alone time with him - she went to at least one basketball game with him when he was her mother's SO. Obviously there was more alone time, for the nude picture taking and the falling in love part.
Prior to the basketball game she spent time with him as evidenced by pictures. What their time together consisted of I don't know. Neither do you.
I am convicting him of what he did do - he, along with Soon-yi destroyed their family. Woody as the "mature" adult has the greater blame.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)Her quote was addressing her childhood. Are you really that dense? Try reading more about this case before you judge. Soon-Yi has said that at the time they started hanging out together, she was nineteen and it was done at her mother's suggestion, because her mother and Woody were a couple in name only by then and Mia didn't want to go to the basketball games.
I don't by any means think Woody Allen is a shining example of the male species, but this kind of nonsense is just silly. Just like going after Mia for destroying the Previn family, or claiming she slept with Sinatra when he was married to another woman.
I mean, we can sit here and analyze the layers of dysfunction at work here forever and none of it proves that Allen molested anyone.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)in discussing this with you.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)Over the last week, all I've seen in regards to this case on DU is a lot of people who claim to be progressives jumping to the unproven conclusion that a man they don't know is guilty of child molestation.
I'm invested in it because I feel this is wrong. Woody Allen really has little to do with it. It's the fact that so many here can simply assume a man is guilty even though due process has found no evidence against him. He is guilty by association. He's guilty by proximity. He's guilty because he looks like a creep. He's guilty because he likes teenage women.
While the dictum "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the courts, I find it morally reprehensible that anyone should jump to conclusions and condemn a man without any proof.
That's WHY I'm invested in this. It's about our society and how we treat other human beings—values that all progressives fight for.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)I am getting bored of this topic and don't want to rehash what has been said over and over in these threads but I did want to acknowledge your apology as it is a very rare thing on DU.
Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #270)
WeekendWarrior This message was self-deleted by its author.
Botany
(70,449 posts)
<In 1978, at the age of eight, Soon-Yi Previn was adopted by Mia Farrow and her then-husband Andre Previn who were on vacation in Korea. In 1980, when Soon-Yi was 10, Farrow began a long-term relationship with Woody Allen which lasted 12 years. In 1992, Farrow found naked photographs of Soon-Yi in Allen’s apartment and subsequently discovered that the two had been having a romantic relationship (at the time she was 22 and Allen was 56). Allen parted ways with Farrow and married Soon-Yi in 1997. Both of Allen’s biological children refused to see him. Allen and Previn have two adopted daughters.>
I do not know if Mr. Allen did or did not molest somebody or do I know about Ms. Farrow's
past interpersonal relationships but what I do know is that a man does not start a romantic
and sexual relationship with his girl friend's daughter. Just because Mr. Allen is very talented
that does not give him carte blanche to do what ever he wants to do.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I have on occasion been labelled for being a "prude" here on DU, but as long as two people are of legal age it is none you your business.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of a family unit, as we see. sisters and brothers. mothers and daughters.
can he legally do it when she is of age? sure.
personally, i have this innate since of integrity that does not allow me to purposely hurt people i love. or destroy the lives and connections of people i love.
people that have the ability to do that to others, are pieces of shits, in my book. just how i feel about POS's that have no self moralization to understand boundaries.
Botany
(70,449 posts)You do not have sex with your partner's children.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I have a 16 yo daughter. If I started dating someone when she was 10 and then found out when she was 19 that they were sleeping together...well...
Plus I'd be pretty sure he was a predator.
Botany
(70,449 posts).... it doers not matter if you are broken up or if the person is over 18.
I typed f***ing instead of spelling it out because I am protecting your
"honor."
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Another thing - it shouldn't matter if she's adopted. I'm getting pretty pissed off at everyone saying, 'but she was Mia's ADOPTED daughter'. Oh, so because she's adopted, she's 'less than' somehow? If it was Mia's biological daughter, would that make it creepy but because it's not her biological daughter, somehow it's 'ok'?
See, threads like this sure make it clear to me that I made the right decision to not date after my divorce until all my children are grown and moved out. Way too many people who are okay with this fucked up shit.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)It is hurtful to those who have spent a lifetime making sure their adopted children feel part of a "real" family unit. To dismiss the bond between adoptees and their families just to defend Allen's behavior is disgraceful.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)you adopted her with. Had a relationship with another man for over a decade and had children with him, and he was taking nude shots of your adopted daughter, having sex with her, and then marrying her, well... It's just two consenting adults??
tavernier
(12,370 posts)why that would piss off Mia.
Screw W.A. - his morals are, at the very least, questionable. And if Sinatra was the father of Ronan and Mia knowingly fooled Allen, hers aren't any better.
But no one has discussed the adopted daughter who tells her side of it as if she is the paragon of virtue... She is the epitome of a Springer Slut... sleeping with her mother's partner and then sweetly claiming purity and innocence because, after all, it wasn't her REAL mother. No, just the woman who adopted her (probably out of an orphanage) and gave her a pretty top shelf life.
Z_I_Peevey
(2,783 posts)I suggest those of you who are unfamiliar with their methods read the literature on the subject before echoing Allen's justifications and obfuscations.
Here's a good book on the subject:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-07172-2
Quite often, the predator attacks and uses more than one family member for sexual gratification. Quite often, a predator deliberately seeks out family situations similar to Farrow's. Easy pickings.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)predator comment.
he says the nudes were to make her comfortable with her body
predator comment.
and yes. they groom....
that is something we will not know with these two. but, this is something we know about the predator.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)talking about 'grooming' behaviour when it comes to this case. It seems to me that that's what it was.
I found this link to describe what grooming is. ( http://www.heroproject.org/en/grooming-behaviors ) Do you know of a better online one? I'll try to get a hold of the book you mentioned if I can find it. 
Z_I_Peevey
(2,783 posts)have been very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Trauma-Understanding-Treating-Survivors/dp/080395509X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391880260&sr=1-5
It's pricey, but it is worth it, especially to someone re-abused by a disbelieving and hostile culture. She's a compassionate professional who has interviewed many child molesters.
Their words are chilling, and considering recent threads like this very one, very familiar.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)
I am a big fan of writers who knows how to treat victims with dignity when they write about touchy subjects like this, so I will definitely add her to my "must have" list.
Their words are chilling, and considering recent threads like this very one, very familiar.
I can imagine.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)He was grooming her at eight because, hey, he loves little kids, but he didn't start dating her until she was nineteen?
What kind of logic is that?
The extremely emotional bias against this man—based on zero evidence—is unbelievable.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)I would bet you a month's salary that plenty of men take up with their girlfriend's adult daughters. I have little doubt that it happens quite frequently.
Does that make it right? No. Does it make Allen guilty of molestation? No.
So, why then, the obsession over someone else's private life?
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)...and family situation. There's no way you can judge them based on what the average person lives.
Mia already had at least a dozen kids...Woody isn't going to bond with each of them as a parent would. He wasn't a dad who went to work at 9, came home at 5 and spent the evening playing in the back yard with the kids. And she wasn't a mom who baked cookies...she was busy actress. Some of her adopted daughters have said that she treated them like hired help.
We should all be allowed to love who we love. Woody and Soon-Yi, both adults, fell in love...period. It happens. The fact that Mia thinks Ronan was possibly Frank Sinatra's son makes it clear that she was having a relationship with him while with Woody. And allowed Woody to think Ronan was his. So, obviously, neither one was truly committed in a conventional sense.
I'm old enough to remember when Mia became friends with Dory Previn and took her husband away. She didn't get nearly the lambasting that Woody got!
I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else who wasn't there. I'm just saying that you can't judge either of them based on your life...because your life is nothing like there's.
Molesting a child is the worst crime of all. Being accused of it if innocent is horrific.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And yet, they/you do.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 12:48 PM - Edit history (2)
an abuser? Haven't most abusers denied their actions?
ETA: I considered this a rhetorical post, but find it interesting that responses focus on Sandusky and NOT the reality that most child abusers DENY their perverse behavior.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I don't think any of us will know what truly happened.
IMHO, the only thing worse than being a pedophile is for a person to be accused of it when he didn't do it.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)than being sexually abused as a child is being accused of lying about the abuse, even as the abuser paints himself a violated, innocent victim (or the weak man who couldn't resist the seductive wiles of a ten year old child -- as is the case with my abuser).
I encourage you to read Florence Rush's "The Best Kept Secret."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yes, in the Sandusky case, dozens of alleged victims spoke up, because there were dozens of them.
With this, only one alleged victim spoke up because there is only one alleged victim.
Do victims have to come in multiples of twelve in order for you to assign them any credibility?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)In the Sandusky case there was the proverbial mountain of evidence. In the present instance not so much.
The state commissioned an investigation of Allen, didn't like the exculpatory findings, and then discredited it. Cui bono?
I have read all the evidence in the public domain and it hasn't moved me beyond the "Gee. I don't know what occurred" stage. If it has moved you past that point to "He is child diddler and should be banished from the company of decent people for a long time or forever" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
I watched the Casey Anthony trial on tv and watched one of her attorneys, Cheney Mason, put up a poster with innocent at the bottom, more likely than not in the middle, probably did it three quarters of the way up, and beyond a reasonable doubt at the top, and argued if you are not there you can not legally convict in our system. I thought it was typical lawyer kitsch because she was guilty, im my eyes, dead to right. However I am not there with Woody Allen.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)One of the first things that I hear my brain saying, if someone in the room with me watching the TV is not saying it out loud as well.
vankuria
(904 posts)to Sandusky's abuses. There were also dozens of victims who came forward to share similar stories about abuses that had similar patterns over a period of several years. Sure Sandusky claimed innocence but it was pretty hard to refute eye witness accounts.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the kids were denied justice. even then it was ignored, excused, validated, justified, hidden by adults and abuse of children continued to get that many number of children speaking out.
what would have happened if he was stopped at the beginning with just one witness? other children would not have been abused. but.... one witness was not enough. we had to allow the man to abuse a lot more children so a lot more witnesses could speak out
and even at that point. that was not good enough. to today, there are many that will defend sandusky and say he is not a rapist. during the outing, he had fan clubs, like woody and like polanski (CONVICTED) has.
dylan has witnesses. but it was not seeing the act, only corroborating the story she told. not good enough. we must actually see her being molested. and then even that is not good enough. cause it is his only and first accusation of molestation of a child.
do we not see how absurdly ludicrous this is.
vankuria
(904 posts)to show the Sandusky and Allen cases are not similar at all and should not be compared. You make it sound as if I'm defending Sandsky talking about fan clubs (?), I don't of anyone defending him except his lawyer. He's in prison where he belongs, his charity closed forever and the kids who came forward have been praised for this.
In the case of Woody Allen, no charges were ever brought against him in spite of a criminal investigation by the Conn. State Police that lasted 6 mo. and included an investigative team from Harvard/New Haven Hosp.(which included medical exams, psychological exams, etc.).
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Here's The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)after, before there was a conviction. and yes. there were many defending sandusky and still defend him.
there was more than enough evidence to suggest allen molested the chilld. he was not convicted in the court, BUT.... the judge stated his behavior was GROSSLY inappropriate, and that measures MUST be taken to protect dylan.
no custody.
no visitation
no supervised visitation
that is a judge saying, .... huge problems here. you do not mess with a fathers visitation. it takes something evident to have a judge deny visitation. especially with a rich man
vankuria
(904 posts)then how come the case never went to trial? Allen was not "convicted" because he was never in a position to prove innocence or guilt, only the court of "public opinion".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they did not want to put a traumatized, vulnerable 7 yr old thru a media circus trial. the judge stated they needed to protect the child. they did. without going thru court
no custody.
no visitation
no supervised visitation
THAT is protecting the child. the court does not deny visitation from a father, especially a rich famous father, unless there is not a huge issue
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)vankuria
(904 posts)Allen's behavior was inappropriate I believe that was based on Allen's relationship with Soon Yi Previn. The statement about not wanting to put Dylan through a trial was by the prosecutor Frank Maco. A lesser know fact is Maco faced disciplinary action for his statements about this case, the panel stated, "inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial".
I believe the decision not to prosecute was based on lack of evidence to win this case. I mean why after all the investigations, and everything Dylan was put through to build a case against Allen, they'd decide not to prosecute because they don't want to put the child through a trial so they let a molester off the hook, free to do this to another child?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)alabama.....
go to court, the girl raped is vilified and the man gets a year, 30 days, or no time.
dylan was already being abused thru media from allen and pr before trial.
you would fault anyone protecting this girl?
they protected her, stopping the abuse.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)...the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and the people they employ who are highly trained professionals specializing in these types of cases?
http://www.ynhh.org/yale-new-haven-childrens-hospital/medical-services/ch_Child_Abuse_Services_main.aspx
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no. it was not credible. the judges point. three people. no notes kept for the
judge to see how each felt. all he was given by this group was a spoken word from one that it was concluded there was not molestation. the judge wanted to know what all felt in there interaction and how they came to their conclusions, and was refused the notes. the lead man (who did not see dylan) refused they could be questioned in court. the lead man went on to analyze mia, which was not what was asked from the group.
so yes... the judge stated that the group was not credible.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just sayin'
The judge did say, "I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The Yale New Haven study report is "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" owing to a variety of factors.
he went on to explain the reasoning. you can find it in the court report
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The judge is saying that the credibility of the report suffered because he could not read their notes or see the investigators cross examined. He did not say they were not credible. Two different things which have different meanings.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just sayin'
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it was not valid, and ignored. the judge protected the child from allen not allowing him to see the child.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Nor was it dismissed by the judge. I'm not creating any illusion. I'm dispelling illusions. You are inserting words that are not there and deriving meanings that are not stated or intended. "less credible" does not mean 'not credible' to those who are fully literate. This is not nit picking.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he explains why
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Seems like a fool's errand.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Others might disagree.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)getting rid of notes is unheard of.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just sayin'
tblue37
(65,227 posts)happened with more certainty than I have. I have read things on both sides that seem convincing and some on both sides that seem unconvincing.
However, this quibble over Wilk's view of the report bothers me. It is like the issue over whether calling Benghazi an "act of terror" is or is not the same as calling it "terrorism."
It is pretty clear that Judge Wilk did not find the report credible enough to rely on it. That doesn't solve the confusion over the case, but it certainly is a significant data point to consider.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)...and could not see the team members cross examined. This is not the same thing as saying he dismissed the report or found it not credible.
The judge also goes on to say that it may never be known exactly what happened on the date in question, which means he made no determination one way or another, contrary to those who claim his opinion supports the charge that Allen molested his daughter.
You are wise not to pass judgment. Others don't seem to be that wise.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)I did not see a good link to the entire opinion. Do you have one? From what I have read, I think that the judge did the right thing in denying access to the child. That type of ruling is very strong.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)I have seen several articles with the excerpts but have not read the entire opinion
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)their perverse behavior. Virtually all child abusers manipulate their chosen victim(s) and their social environment to ensure secrecy -- a critical element in securing access to their target child.
cali
(114,904 posts)there's reasonable doubt even though he's a deeply creepy guy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the lead, the only male physician that he was innocent? and he states that he is innocent. the judge tried to get the notes of all, none. they refused to sit on the witness stand. and it was only one mans word that they conclude there was nothing.
suspect.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)a teenager so it's okay? At least around here lately?
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)All child abusers deny it.
But so do innocent people. And a denial does not automatically mean guilt. It helps to have supporting evidence, and with Sandusky there was plenty.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that belies the entire, poorly written paean to Mr. Narcissism:
"I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought."
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)...and often give them a hug or squeeze. If someone ever accused me of child molestation...I would...think it was so ludicrous I wouldn't give it a second thought!
Democat
(11,617 posts)If he was innocent, he probably thought that people would dismiss it after looking at the facts and tried to go on with his life.
If you were innocent, would you do any different?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Such an accusation is so serious and damaging, I cannot imagine a single instance when a falsely accused individual wouldn't use any and every opportunity to factually deny the accusation. I cannot imagine "not giving it a second thought."
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You said so yourself up above.
What good does denying it do?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)and not a little disingenuous to reiterate the canard of "false reports" of child sexual abuse. In the thirty plus years I've been an advocate for survivors, I've not encountered a single instance. In the research on child sexual abuse, the incidence of "false reports" is statistically insignificant. Still, the old "false reports" canard gets trotted out to discredit a credible report.
Because "false reports" are so rare, and most sexual abuse survivors are credible, I would fervently hope a person falsely accused would prevail and be exonerated.
In this specific case involving Mr. Allen, I sincerely hope he hasn't perped on anyone else.
TM99
(8,352 posts)when 'advocates for survivors' are not trained in the field but believe by virtue of their experiences, that they have all the answers.
Please read this work by Dr. Tara Ney - True And False Allegations Of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment & Case Management.
This is the reality, and yes, there are numerous cases of 'false reports', faulty memories, etc. and as professionals who deal with this, we are trained from the beginning to deal with all possibilities because both sexual abuse and false accusations of abuse are damaging to ALL involved.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I happen to be trained, as well.
Using a meta-analysis approach, one finds estimates of "false reports" as low as 2% and as high as 4%. However, only a fraction of "false reports" originates with a child survivor. Indeed:
Of the allegations determined to be false, only a small portion originated with the child, the studies showed; most false allegations originated with an adult bringing the accusations on behalf of a child, and of those, a large majority occurred in the context of divorce and child-custody battles.
Thanks for suggesting Ney's book. I'll add it to my personal library, on the off chance I encounter a survivor making "false reports."
TM99
(8,352 posts)Here's why, and I hope that since you are in the field, you will be more open to what I have been trying communicate.
Many, including yourself, are taking out of context Dylan Farrows public admission of sexual molestation and abuse. You are instantly accepting that she is simply a survivor and as the stats show, less than 5% are false allegations. You are stopping there as many are. But we can't really do that. Why? Because this is a 20 year old allegation that absolutely fits with the very quote you are presenting here. The adult is involved in the accusations AND it often occurs during the context of a divorce and child-custody battle.
That is what was happening between Mia Farrow & Woody Allen. There were investigations, a trial, and an appeal which all determined that there was no proof of sexual abuse. Lots of subsequent authors attempt to suggest otherwise because Woody Allen didn't take a lie detector from one person but did another, because the Judge thought Mia was good and Allen bad because he got involved with Soon-Yi, because the Yale-New Haven medical team was 'incompetent' or 'paid for by Woody Allen's PR team', etc, etc, etc.
As professionals in the field, we both know first of all that if accusations like this were made that it would be extremely difficult for Woody Allen & Soon-Yi to adopt two daughters without careful scrutiny. We both know that sexual abusers have a long history of abuse. Woody Allen may have history of dating younger women, some even bordering on legal age, but sexual attraction to a 17 or 19 year old is NOT the same thing a sexual attraction to a 7 year old. There were no previous accusations of abuse, and there have been no subsequent ones either.
Many may consider him 'creepy' but his actions with Soon-Yi are really no different than Mia Farrows with Frank Sinatra. Some here say, Woody Allen groomed her from an early age because some abusers do that (not all as you should know). Did Frank Sinatra do the same to Mia Farrow? After all she was 11 when John Farrow introduced her to Frank Sinatra with John Farrow warning Frank Sinatra to not go near his daughter - of course John Farrow was having an affair with Eva Gardner, Frank Sinatra's wife at the time. He then seduced her at age 19, married her, and divorced her within 2 years. Was Frank Sinatra a child sexual abuser? Did he 'groom' Mia Farrow? Is Mia Farrow a survivor of childhood sexual abuse? Does that explain her history with bad relationships, serial adoptions, emotional instability, etc.? If so, did that get projected into her nasty dispute with Woody Allen? The emotional stress of experiencing your adopted daughter falling in love with and beginning a long-term sexual and romantic relationship with your estranged partner could and would certainly trigger abuse issues. Even more so, given that a younger woman is breaking up a relationship she is in with an older man much as she did with Dory and Andre Previn.
So, there are enough questions that yes, I would and do hesitate in believing carte blanche that what Dylan claims she remembers is 'true'. Some here believe that that makes me insensitive, unempathic, or inconsiderate to those who have experienced sexual abuse. I am none of those things. I was molested myself. I learned in my own training that my own counter-transference if not fully dealt with can, could, and does cloud my perception. My professional integrity in this case, naturally judging it only from afar, does have me question the certainty that so many 'feel' about the entire situation. I will still maintain as I have that while I have questions and am not certain, I also am not personally involved, know none of the parties in question, and am not arrogant enough to presume that I am certain just because of some 'stats'. I do hope that Dylan Farrow gets the hell away from her mother and gets extensive therapy to figure out what did and didn't occur. The timing of this letter and the still obvious rancor that Mia Farrow has for Woody Allen is not condusive to Dylan Farrow getting any sort of healing in the matter.
And if Woody Allen did molest her and got away with it, we both know as professionals that if she is waiting for an admission in order to 'heal' then she will never do so. Take herself back into privacy, not hidden or ashamed, but just private & personally deal with healing so that she can be free from those shadows, have healthier relationships than her mother ever did, and live a happy life. So few abuse victims ever really heal which does deeply sadden me. They nurse and nurture their victimization, their hurt, their rage, and deny themselves happiness decades after the past has ended. 
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I read all the books I add to my library.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)was inappropriate with dylan as it was. he was clued in people were concerned. it was not like he was not already told he could not be alone with dylan, but sure enough made a 20 minute period of time alone with the girl
if you had a mother and therapists concerned with your behavior with a daughter, would you not take it to heart and ensure there were no question instead of creating more questions?
Response to chervilant (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)boston bean
(36,219 posts)most sexual perverts do deny it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Everybody that's accused of something heinous is ipso facto guilty by the mere accusation itself and consequently he or she shouldn't bother denying it. No need for due process and presumption of innocence niceties, especially when the accused is as eccentric as Woody .
Why don't we just throw Woody into the ocean and if he drowns it means he did it.
The opposite is how we roll in America.
Democat
(11,617 posts)And no one has ever lied about being abused or had false memories.
This is what I learned on DU.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)IMHO, the judge's findings were colored by his disapproval of Woody's affair with Soon-Yi. I don't blame him. It seems odd to me. However that doesn't mean he sexually abused a seven year old nor does any of the other evidence I have seen.
Could he have done it? Sure. Could he not have done it ? Sure. I have read of many criminal investigations and trials and in this instance I can honestly say I don't know what happened.
As I said the only thing worse than being a pedophile is to be falsely accused of it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)because of the 2-3%
there is logic for you
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)But I can honestly say I don't know if he is a pedo, to use a colloquialism, or not.
I can remember watching the Mcmartin preschool trial and thinking these are the most vile and despicable people on earth; the worst of the worst, and they should have "millstones wrapped around their necks and be cast into the sea" and they turned out to be factually innocent.
If a person sexually assaulted a seven year old he or she should be in prison. Based on what you know should Woody Allen have been tried , found guilty, and sent to prison?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail.
pretty much tells you, rape is a crime that does not see the end with jail. should have been sent to jail is not the reality rape victims experience. and to have money makes it almost impossible to get their ass in jail. polanski was guilty, and he does not sit in jail.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)He did see a psychologist because his interest in her evoked suspicion. However the investigation into the sexual assault accusation suggested he didn't sexually assault her. The judge didn't "like" the investigation and said it was biased.
This leaves me shaking my head , thinking we will never now.
As to Polanski his guilt was never in question. He didn't deny the accusation. He fled the country when the judge reneged on the plea deal that had been arranged.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)people still declare their innocents. people still say, even with video, not enough proof.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)In Polanski's case you had an admission. In Sandusky's case you had multiple accusers and a tacit admission of inappropriate behavior.
It's just not as clear cut in my mind with Allen.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we can really justify that?
i am talking your comment on sandusky.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)There was a pattern of assault in Sandusky's case and an eye witness. That's why I had no problem in believing he was guilty. In Allen's case those elements don't exist; pattern and eye witness. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But I couldn't send Allen to prison based on what I have read.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)more rapes.
there is evidence of molestation. a 7 yr old spoke out. she spoke out at the time. she spoke out without mia there. she spoke out to child service. she spoke out to the police. damn good evidence.
woody allen was not to be alone with the girl. he made sure he was, for 20 minutes.
he was going to a therapist to be taught that he had inappropriate behavior with dylan, for a couple years.
one witness saw allen with head on lap, kneeling in front of him. separate of dylan saying this happened, held her down, wouldnt let her up, breathing into her crotch
you had another witness say she saw dylan with underwear after she came back with time with allen, unsupervised. confirming dylans statement what allen did with her in the attic.
you did not have someone see actual molestation. if that is the evidence we state we need to prosecute, then rape away....
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)With all that smoke I would not feel comfortable sending somebody to the hoosegow.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)This isn't about whether you think he did it, you have a vague notion he did it, but whether you believe there is enough credible evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.
The D.A. could reopen the case tomorrow.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)due to the continued trauma a trial would be on a 7 year old.
There are legal time limitations on a case going forward, and Woody Allen has said in response
to his daughter's letter that he will not be responding any further, and nor will anyone else
on his behalf.
I take this to mean he does not want to risk saying anything that could possibly open up
the door to any charges that could be leveled against him now.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)X is accused of a heinous and despicable crime
The prosecutor refuses to prosecute this heinous and despicable crime in understandable deference to the victim.
X is guilty.
I think we missed the whole part of due process.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)based on the fact the accuser was 7 years old, and if you think his lawyers
would go easy on her..then you do not understand how brutal these cases
can be. The accuser can become a victim all over again. And can we remember
when reading Dylan's letter, she had no say as to whether she wanted to
go forward...for obvious reasons. The pain for victims is not simplistic, and
perhaps this open letter to state her case is all she can achieve, in her mind,
at justice.
Allen was not convicted, that there was no probable cause would be false.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)A prosecutor is duty bound to only bring forward those cases that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You feel comfortable that there is clear and compelling evidence that proves Allen's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't.
As an aside didn't the state commission the very investigation they found not to be credible. That would blow up their case right there.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)it happens all the time, regardless. The Yale team would have had serious credibility
issues..they are Yale but there are many experts even at the time with more experience
who could have brought their highly questionable behavior under court review. Yet
that would not have precluded having Dylan subjected to his lawyers.
It is of no consequence to me if you believe him or not. What has been presented
to you is what is on the record..and much was inaccurate in other OP's on the subject.
What you do with it is up to you.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)abuse". Whatever age Dylan was, this was the quality of the evidence.
from the judge in the custody hearing. Page 22. This judge was all in for Mia, too.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Wow, thanks for your opinion.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Talk to me when you have.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)in every conceivable way, in many different places in this opinion.
Yet is was not the age of Dylan that was the problem with going forward with this ...
but the inadequacy of the evidence.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is pure conjecture.
Believe as you wish, the documentation that is on the record does not support the
contention from Woody Allen that Mia Farrow coached their daughter.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I am not talking about coaching Dylan. I am talking about evidence of sexual abuse.
Pay attention.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)isolating to avoid the entire process.
Judge is in for Mia, unreal.
bye
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The criticism of Woody is unending, as is the praise for Mia's parenting. The judge is all in for Mia.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If true, this would be after the fact, and a sense of appreciation, not an indication
he was in for Mia with a bias..which is what the other poster implies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)tunes Farrow named two kids after Wilk, you wanna discuss something else?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I believe I already told you, if she did this, it was in appreciation, it is not an indication
that points to the judge being biased in her favor.
I don't run and google to support your claims...you seem invested in an odd approach to
a discussion.
On edit. Post 146, the judge did not find the Yale team credible..you wish to hinge
on less credible..be my guest.
Ask yourself why Allen was not awarded custody, if it was such a minor issue of credibility.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and putting a traumatized, vulnerable 7 yr old on stand. GOOD FOR THEM
judge stated allen's behavior grossly inappropriate. stated, take measures to protect dylan.
he did
no custody
no visitation
no supervised visitation
protect the child without cause further harm putting her thru a trial
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)judge to see how each felt. all he was given by this group was a spoken word from one that it was concluded there was not molestation. the judge wanted to know what all felt in there interaction and how they came to their conclusions, and was refused the notes. the lead man (who did not see dylan) refused they could be questioned in court. the lead man went on to analyze mia, which was not what was asked from the group.
so yes... the judge stated that the group was not credible.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)The District Attorney presumably weighed all the evidence, found it wanting, and realized he could not convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed.
That's the standard...Everything else is commentary...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)me tot he original statement that even with a video of the molestation, there would be justification, dismissal, excuses, validation, ..... to defend the rapist.
i mean polanski admitted it. and his defenders say it wasnt rape rape.
sandusky still have those that defend. and after the first witness claimed a child was being raped it was allowed to continue.... not enough evidence to prosecute. allow many more rapes of our boys
boston bean
(36,219 posts)for stating there was enough evidence to bring to trial. Because he wasn't brought to trial is not dispositive either.
Many guilty as sin perverts are never brought to trial.
You want to hang your hat on that he wasn't brought to trial, so he must be innocent until proven guilty in everyones eyes, doesn't pass the bar.
It is not commentary, it is a discussion of the facts in the public view. You believe the childs account was untrue due to the fact that Allen wasn't brought to trial. So you certainly allow yourself to be an arbiter.
why are you so hung up on anyone else having the opposite opinion?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)My opinion is I don't know if he did it or not and I do not know if the child's version of events happened as she recalls.
If others are certain of their opinion and believe that Allen should have been deprived of his liberty and reputation based on what is in the public domain with all the concurrent ambiguity that is their right.
Let's say I'm on the jury and the three choices are "guilty", "not guilty", and "I don't know" I would have to go with "I don't know".
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The judge said it's likely they would never know what happened on the day in question.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dylan from allen
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Family court judges have a wide latitude on when they can deny custody, especially 20 years ago when they were even more biased against men than they are now. Allen took very little interest in his children. He never wanted them to begin with and only agreed with Mia when she promised he would have no responsibilities for them which he never accepted. Speaking of creating illusions, there were lots of reasons for him being denied custody that had zero to do with the sexual abuse allegation. If you did read the report, you would know these things.
No less than 2 doctors and all of the prosecution's experts which included a doctor and two social workers with advanced degrees concluded no sexual abuse occurred. Not that it might have occurred, but that it did not occur. No experts concluded it did happen. No experts even concluded it might have happened. That's why Allen was never so much as charged for any crime. Try as much as you want, but dems da facts. Pretending the opinion says something different than that does not make it so.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)there in person, or molestation of a child, for a person to be prosecuted. i get that many many children had to be raped because ONE witness seeing the rape was not enough. i get that a video of a girls rape still allowed prosecutors and sheriffs and a town to deny that anything illegal happened.
this judge protected the child
NO custody
NO visitations
NO supervised visitations
Z_I_Peevey
(2,783 posts)A direct quote from Allen's reply.
He is well aware of the fact that he was seen with his head in the "lap," i.e. crotch, of a seven-year-old.
Quite the humorist, isn't he?
I continue to marvel at the way this pervert is toying with his victims, and his adoring public. He is beyond despicable.
ann---
(1,933 posts)puke. He's ugly inside and out.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and he jokes and giggles
15 12 yr old love nest for him
he is such a hoot
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Squinch
(50,922 posts)ex-wife is "clucking?"
I guess if we can't laugh along with him about the sexual assault, we're just a bunch of hens?
You seriously want to put that in writing?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lie
the victim rarely does.
instead of the other way around.
simply another factor
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)tblue37
(65,227 posts)WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)If she drowns, she's innocent. If she survives, she's a witch and we must kill her!!!!!
DamnYankeeInHouston
(1,365 posts)We may never have 100% certainty, but would you let him babysit your teen daughter?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Would you leave your daughter's pet rabbit around near her?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and one who was silenced for 40 years, I would expect
to feel more aligned with Woody Allen's accuser. But
I don't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and that Woody was self centered and did not think of the consequences of his behavior. That he was impulsive and just did what he wanted. He found Mia was a good mother, if not perfect, and that her biggest flaw as mother was her continued relationship with Woody. The judge even denied Woody supervised visitation. And found his custody petition frivolous enough that he should pay Mia's attorneys fees and costs.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I agree. Even though he wasn't legally a stepfather he was still in a position of authority. There is one truth in this whole matter- Dylan is a victim. Allen either did this and is he abuser, or Mia concocted the whole thing and is the abuser. I come away from this thinking I woudnt let Allen or Farrow within a mile of my children. They are both creepy people.
tblue37
(65,227 posts)The only person who has my full sympathy in this situation is Dylan. No matter what, she was victimized and her pain is obviously deep and ongoing.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".
Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
Found that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”
Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"measures must be taken to protect her", " serious parental inadequacies"
no custody
no visitation
no supervised visitation
that never happens with a father, and especially a rich father.
perverted pig. You don't have sex with your adopted teen-age daughter and call it love.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,824 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)TEEN daughter of his then live-in partner. He is a perverted pig.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,824 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)That's pretty damning if true. Lie detectors aren't 100% but law enforcement uses them to gain a reasonable certainty with most people. Refusing to take one is often a telltale sign that the witness is lying.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
Tanuki
(14,914 posts)test and tried to submit one which he had privately paid to have done.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)would reveal a lot about this case.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'm not sure you could say anyone was reluctant?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)they are inadmissible in court. There's no way anyone should ever take one if they are smart, especially if they know they are innocent. Like talking to the cops in the hope they will "decide" not to continue, a very dumb thing to agree to.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)and commissioned a private test, which was not admissible as evidence.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Anyone who is accused of anything and submits to a police lie detector test is not doing themselves any favors. They are nothing more than pseudo-scientific voodoo with the validity of a coin flip.
ann---
(1,933 posts)to anyone that Allen was being vindictive against Mia Farrow when he started messing around with her teenage daughter, Soon Yi? Allen is a sick man. Just look at the kind of hideous movies he produces.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,824 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)Would never go see an Allen movie before and certainly won't now.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)mother/child, hired help, therapists.
tblue37
(65,227 posts)trying to enlist the support of those people. The comment was not in reference to his behavior before the affair with Soon Yi was discovered.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And has two kids with her. It must be one hell of a vendetta to keep it up for twenty years.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip* Specifically, Wilk writes:
1. "There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
* Interesting defense by Allen, he is not going to speak about this again, nor will anyone else on his behalf.
Sounds like a good plan considering his daughter may very well be preparing a response.
Piece of shit.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I am embarrassed for you.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)You should be embarrassed that you can't or at least won't admit you can't.
Just sayin'
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Some kind of weird game for you..sad.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)While I don't consider it all that unusual that you've managed to convince yourself of a non-fact, you seem to be under the delusion that I'm convinced as well.
Just sayin'
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You have a pattern.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)YMMV.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Who ended up with custody?
snip* Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not been abused. "I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse," Justice Wilk wrote.
The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had been "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen." He added that the unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the destruction of the team's notes had "compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible."
You're silly at this point.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)If you had, I doubt you'd be so smug with the name calling. Then again you don't respond well to reasoned replies and seem to take them personally for some strange reason. You might want to consider having a drink and lightening up a little. It might do wonders for your disposition.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)member here in this thread and tried to pull the same nonsense.
Passive aggressive too, I see.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)I think I'm going to give you a break and let you settle down some. Feel free to have the last word as despite your projection, seems quite important to you.
Cheers!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Too hard a question, eh?
Who was awarded custody? hmmm
Ohio Joe
(21,732 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)innocents.... hopping.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
d_b
(7,462 posts)that's all I need to know
RC
(25,592 posts)Fact: Mia Farrow is a female.
Fact: Mia accused Woody of child molestation.
Fact: That is enough for some people here on DU to prove the guilt of whatever he is accused of.
Therefore Woody is guilty of, any and everything foul, that he is accused of by Mia. Plus whatever else his detractors her on DU says is.
Statements of defense of and by Woody Allen are twisted as proof of guilt. 19 is turned into 10. Questionable things Mia did are glossed over. Tangible proof, such as Mia's biological children looking like others, other than Woody, don't seem to have a bearing here. Above all, Mia always seems to be above reproach and even saintly.
What is in short supply in this thread is reasonable doubt. That Mia may actually be the evil one in all this.
Fact: People that molest children, seldom stop at one. Woody, in all his years, is only suspected and accused of molesting one child. And by a woman in a rage against him for whatever reason. A woman with a history of cheating on him, no less.
I would call that reasonable doubt.
But what do I know, I am a man.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Before that, Dylan denied Woody molested her. I know how important that is to you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the child. at that point dylan discussed it.
now... you know this. and if you are so damn insensitive, or maybe just uneducated with children and behaviors that you can read the rest of the story and throw out the icecream as fuckin anything...... then, well
you know
i know your history of posts
i really do not know why i am wasting a second of my time
my bad
RC
(25,592 posts)Inquiring minds would like to know.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)She said she was coerced by Farrow, who controlled her employment.
Mia's own testimony said she wasn't sure if Dylan was molested. She told the child's doctor of her doubts.
Farrow also claims she suspected abuse from when Dylan was 2 or 3, yet allowed Allen to adopt her when she was 6. Why would she do this?
Allen was allowed to adopt 2 children after all of this happened. Why would they allow him to do so if he had molested his daughter?
Why did Dylan claim that Mia was not physically abusive to her children when the very judge's opinion you are touting says she was?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)statement.
i often took my kids for an icecream for all kinds of reasons. all kinds. rewards. to sit and talk and allow them to express. just for fun. because they got a shot. all kinds of reasons.
why did she take her for icecream, and how is that relevant for you?
RC
(25,592 posts)After they returned, that is when Dylan agreed she was molested. I see a causation here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is hard. that is normal.
still.... i am not getting what icecream has to do with her going the next day, after a mother settle the child down. reassured a child. comforted a child. told the child she would have to be brave, whatever, a parent would do in addressing a child afraid to tell the doctor.
do you find this abnormal?
what they did not do was press the child in the office. they took a breather. they TOOK CARE OF THE CHILD the way adults do.
what are you saying? still not seeing it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)man
RC
(25,592 posts)Stuff like this happens all the time in divorces, using the kids to gain an advantaged or to discredit over the other.
Oh, I'm still waiting for your response about my posting history that you have a problem with.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to keep the father/child bond going
sounds to me that would be an exceptional woman when your partner of over a decade fucks your daughter and still you understand his role is more than just that and ensures the children keep that bond with the father.
now what?
RC
(25,592 posts)Try sticking to the known facts.
This exchange is a waste of time.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)d_b
(7,462 posts)but we both know Woody Allen is male.
Checkmate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
RC
(25,592 posts)Squinch
(50,922 posts)I kind of feel bad for you... I never thought of a scrotum that way.
Also, gynocratic tyrants! That is fabulous! I'm getting a T-shirt! 
Beringia
(4,316 posts)I agree with this one.
ROL - Arlington Virginia
5) Neither Dylan nor Woody need be lying, if by that is meant intentional deceit. The line separating acceptable physical affection of father to daughter from abuse can be ambiguous, especially years ago when the need to stay clear of the line was less salient. A father's fondling and inadvertent touching without sexual intent might be experienced by a child as forbidden touching, and malleable memory could change to make the offense more certain over time.
------------------
After reading roguevalley post yesterday, it does seem Woody Allen has no desire to be a real father, only to have an emotional relationship when it interests him. And Mia Farrow wanted a child with Woody even after he said he had no interest. Why would she go forward in those circumstances, when she already had so many children.
zazen
(2,978 posts)And frankly, it doesn't seem like Farrow has a healthy sense of boundaries either, though her issues probably stemmed from early abuse. But there seem to be boundary violations all over that family.
So did she "cause" it? No. But the accounts of her actions do suggest that she could have used a good 20 years of Al-Anon or some other support group to help her recognize boundary violations and thereby set a healthier example. In that climate, Soon Yi would be even more susceptible to a narcissist, boundary-violator like Allen.
But he's the primary perp here, not her.
I'd agree with that assessment that her number one issue was a continued relationship with someone she recognized was a narcissistic abuser--but then that's often the case when entangled with narcissists, batterers, active alcoholics, etc. They're very good at getting you to question yourself and think you're overreacting and to hope that they've "changed."
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Beringia
(4,316 posts)I don't know what Woody Allen is capable of, or what Dylan Farrow is capable of, I don't believe what she says there. I don't think Woody would have molested her while there were so many people around, right in the midst of his new scandal with his "stepdaughter". Does not ring true to me. But God and heaven do know the truth.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)brilliantly interesting post
Beringia
(4,316 posts)I didn't "declare".
brilliantly interesting?? what is that supposed to mean.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and concluded there had been no molestation, and the story had either been planted, or invented. Hmm. But since Allen says he is innocent, that must mean he is guilty, because the first thing an innocent person does is admit they are guilty. 
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
Here's The 1993 Woody Allen Custody Ruling In Its Damning, Detailed Entirety
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
Democat
(11,617 posts)Does that show bias by the investigators?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)not find the Yale team credible.
It is not typical, nor professional for notes to be destroyed in that manner. In a highly
profiled case for Levanthal to refuse to attend trial and use only what was given under
deposition, the judge also found that to be damaging and rightly so.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)You should read it more closely.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)What is the passage I missed.
on edit to add: . "There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan."
2014-02-07-nocrediblewomanscorned.png
2. The Yale New Haven study report is "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" owing to a variety of factors.
2014-02-07-YNH2.png
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Nothing in the opinion supports that, including what you posted.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Evidently, you're bothered by nuance.
on edit to add: . "There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan."
2014-02-07-nocrediblewomanscorned.png
2. The Yale New Haven study report is "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" owing to a variety of factors.
2014-02-07-YNH2.png
Enjoy your day.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)This is your claim:
"the judge did not find the Yale team credible. "
This is what you are comprehending to support your claim, but clearly does not:
"There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan."
The words "Yale" or "team" do not even appear here. The allegation that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan was one hypothesis of the team with no direct evidence which makes the statement offered correct, but nonetheless a red herring towards your claim.
"The Yale New Haven study report is "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" owing to a variety of factors. "
"less credible" does not mean "not" credible. This is basic literacy.
Cheers!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the point person from Yale. Obviously, you're uncomfortable.
You're also a waste of time.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just curious.
It seems entertaining the possibility you might be wrong disturbs you enough to reply even though you claim it's a waste of time.
Just sayin'
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)you rely on semantics to prove an otherwise clear meaning. We're done here.
209. The word "consent" has one meaning to those who are fully literate
210. If you want to feign ignorance, more power to you.
Just please refrain from ever giving anyone legal advice should they be caught with their pants down because you "using the fully literate meaning of that word" isn't going to get them very far.
I believe that addiction, poverty and criminality are every bit as coercive as a weapon and in the case of criminality somebody with a weapon isn't usually very far away, so the same principles should apply.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I'm not going to drop it just because you took Tom Cruise's "What a capitalist" monologue in Risky Business to heart.
I love the internet, in the same day I can be one of the Marxist hoard that needs to be executed for treason after the teabagger revolution, a man hating rape-frenzied rad-fem and a puritanical social conservative
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022953254#post210
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)... of me using the fully literate meaning of a completely different word.
Brilliant!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Your history of arguments on topics such as this one is a reliance on semantics, as
I said earlier, I am embarrassed for you.
But go ahead, and have the last word...it suits your thinking patterns.
efhmc
(14,723 posts)He's made millions on it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Which of his movies are perverted?
Blue_Adept
(6,393 posts)You never get an answer to that?
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)with child molestation/incest themes in them, considering the circumstances.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-movies
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Squinch
(50,922 posts)you never got a response to that.
imthevicar
(811 posts)What I have ta, SQUIRREL!
What fools these mortals be.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Response to B2G (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #178)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Followed by the legal opinion and ruling.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Allen v. Farrow
He's other lying or mistaken. Neither are good things.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)For instance, the part where he says Dylan first said no to abuse while at the doctor (which is true) and then Mia took her for ice cream and came back and she said she was abused (which isn't true), is partially fabricated. That's not actually what happened. As can be seen in the decision.
There are many other inaccuracies or half-truths. Most of which are probably minor manipulations of details, or omissions, in order to make his argument persuasive.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Because there's plenty of court records detailed in the press already which support Allen's assertions.
And how can you possible know the ice cream story was fabricated? The judge makes no mention of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't contained in the depositions or testimony which most certainly would be part of the court records. It sounds like you are claiming that because the judge didn't make specific mention of it, it must be fabricated.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)He is going to have to provide some evidence beside his own assertion. That's not an unreasonable expectation. He can certainly claim such things happened if he chooses. But we have little or no reason to take them serious absent some validation.
In this case, the judge reflects a position of authority and disinterest that cannot be bestowed upon Woody Allen as he has clear conflict of interest. Just as I don't care much at all about Mia Farrows personal statements on the matter either. I care about the reports and court decisions.
The Yale report, or the two pages provided, certainly demands due consideration. Just as the Allen v. Farrow decision.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Not so much with Allen's criminal guilt or innocence. Nowhere in the opinion does the judge say he thinks Allen molested Dylan. The biggest concern the judge had was Allen's relationship with Soon Yi. In fact, the custody appeal doesn't even mention the molestation allegation at all. Those who seem to think the judge's opinion amounts to a smoking gun have yet to produce any smoke, much less a gun.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which means you probably didn't bother to read it. Maybe you should before going any further with this.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The first makes mention of it, the 2nd does not. I should have been more specific.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995352215AD2d137_1310
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It wasn't an off hand remark. It was explored in the 1993 decision.
The 1995 appeal was an examination of whether or not the 1993 appeal was decided unfairly or incompletely. It was a technical investigation of the appeal process, not a rehashing of the allegations made against Allen. Thus it is not terribly surprising it is not directly mentioned.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The appeals court said, "Unlike the court at IAS, we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive." So effectively they did rehash the allegations or they wouldn't have mentioned this.
The appeals court reached the same finding as the judge which was there was no way to determine if there was any validity to the allegation or not.
Response to B2G (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Now all you folks can stop posting. I summed it up for you.
reddread
(6,896 posts)This sort of indecent behavior is as much an illness as anything, with the sick perpetrators finding sympathy and understanding in short supply. When you get some exposure to the pedophiles released in the streets of Fresno because they are turned out into homeless "neighborhoods" consisting of invisible boundaries where (until recently) the police forced undesirables to remain or face the threat of arrest. The pedophiles (given a numbered term for their offense and an ankle bracelet) that you see in these situations are often the most pathetic creatures, with mental facilities ranging from raging schizophrenia to developmentally disabled. What is worse, is seeing how other homeless people will treat those folks, and often make false accusations against the people they have grudges against.
When those incidents play out before your eyes, you realize that compassion for everyone or compassion for no one are the choices.
While our society appears to worship marketed celebrities, overlooking their character deficits, marveling at their miseries, thousands of serial perpetrators get away with their crimes until very late in life, or entirely.
What no one making the charges against Woody Allen should expect, is that there would be only one victim.
Until one more person comes forward, the things being said about him are ENTIRELY UNLIKELY.
and not very well thought out.
Maybe you should take all that disgust and outrage and direct it at the known perpetrators-
Ted Nugent. Jimmy Page. Michael Jackson. The Lawrence King Omaha Boystown prostitution ring. These injustices go unpunished.
get on your high horses about them, and wait for corroboration on Allen.
If its true that he is a child molestor, it will come out.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)or possibly lied for him because how sure are we that she was not groomed young? And how did this man go on to adopt two girls?
Are you requiring corroboration by multiple victims before an accusation can be made in every case of molestation? And is a pattern of fascination with underage girls not considered an indicator of proclivities? He acts on his desires, he writes about them, he films them.
Mostly, he ignores the issues.
Only now, he addresses it when he wants an award from his peers and the public. He wants our respect and applause for his work. And yet as we evaluate that work, it only leaves us more conflicted about his character.
The only thing that protects him is his money and his lawyers. He long ago forfeited his good name.
reddread
(6,896 posts)youre not making sense.
The whole Soon Yi debacle and prejudices carried forward to this day show exactly how people fail to respect women.
Do you think she would remain with him if he was the scumbag being assumed by people who dont know any of the people involved?
How can anyone make that judgement?
groomed?
whatever.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Why do people get Stockholm Syndrome? Why do people love those who don't have their best interests at heart? I don't know the answer to that question.
I do know Woody did not have Soon-Yi's best interests at heart when he got close enough to her under her mother/his girlfriend's roof to make Soon-Yi want to pose nude for him, want to betray her family, ignore her sister's alleged molestation, and run off with him. He took her family from her. Her youth. She has no one else. I find it rather sad.
And from her sister, he clearly took much more.
As for "prejudices carried forward to this day," you might be right. I have not felt the same about the man or his films since these allegations first surfaced. Nothing I have seen or heard has changed my mind. His films still leave a bad taste in my mouth.
reddread
(6,896 posts)how does his money protect him if he wouldnt pay them off?
what sort of guilty guy stands up to extortion?
who uses Dershowitz?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but I am an Asian woman, and I can imagine her sense of being isolated from family and culture and further estranged from her adopted family, especially since she had a role in tearing it a part. Isn't that why she reaches out to her younger sibling the one who is also willing to deny their sister's allegations? What is the price of loyalty to one's siblings in this family? Or the price of one's adopted father's love?
Do you think Mia tried to extort money from Woody? Is there any evidence of this?
Bottom line, he was denied custody and visitation rights. There was a reason. I assumed he really didn't care what anyone thought about his actions at the time. And no one really did for twenty years. But now he cares. And he is surprised that the issue could derail his Oscar dreams.
A very very messed up family.
reddread
(6,896 posts)
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Fuck that shit. That's what we have a justice system for.
This is what gets me... people are up in arms about this, which MIGHT have affected ONE person 20-some years ago. That's not definitely, but maybe. But many of those same people are perfectly fine with some I could mention who are butt-waving twerks, who are definitely very negatively affecting MILLIONS today, right now. It doesn't fly with me, neither of those positions do. I ask myself, how can people be so consistently wrong.
If standing up for victims is what's so important in this sort of issue, then why is it so often the thing that goes unnoticed? From what I can see of these incidents, the common thread is this: when people can set up a good target for their hate, they are all set to get involved in it, that is what matters and it's what they are looking for. Otherwise, they're indifferent, no matter how many victims there are.
I've felt that kind of emotion before in an earlier era of my life and I can understand it, but fortunately it isn't where I am anymore. The thing is though, it certainly isn't a substitute for a logical or acceptable way of evaluating issues relating to other people.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)If Allen really thought that he was defamed, he could litigate the truth of Dylan Farrow's comments in the court. That would mean that Allen would have to testify under oath. The last paragraph of Allen's letter makes clear that he does not want to prove his claims in court.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)The burden of proof would all be on him. He'd have to prove the allegations were false - which in this case seems difficult if not impossible, because of the he-said she-said nature of the case. Meanwhile, the lawsuit could drag on for years - ensuring this entire tawdry affair stays in the public eye, when he wants it just to go away - and if he were to lose the lawsuit, it would widely be perceived as proof of his guilt. In short, regardless of his guilt or innocence, he has a low probability of gaining anything from a lawsuit, and far more to lose.
Incidentally, the same goes for his refusal to take a state-administered polygraph test. Given the unreliability of such tests, he'd have been a fool to agree to that, even if he is innocent.